
m5 



HOLLINGER 
pH8J 

MILL RUN F3-1543 



M3' 






CIRCULAR 



' \i 



' \ 



OF 



ALBERT G. WATKINS. OF TENNESSEE, 



TO 



HIS CONSTITUENTS OF THE FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. 



WASHINGTON : 

PRINTED At THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 

1856. 




CIRCULAR. 



Fellow-citizexs of the First Congressional j 
District of Tinncssee: I am called upon to address i 
you a circular letter at this period, although I I 
regret exceedingly the necessity of doing so. I j 
applied on yesterday to a gentleman of my ac- ] 
quaintanco who, I understood, was a subscriber 
to the "Knoxville Whig" for the number con- 
taining the letter of N. G. Taylor, of Tennessee, 
professing to be a reply to a letter written by me 
and published in the same paper. I am under the 
necessity of addressing you, fellow-citizens, in 
circular form, for tlio reason, tliat I am debarred 
by every principle and impulse of personal inde- 
pendence from asking a publication of what I 
have to say in the journal in which the extraor- 
dinary letter to which I am replying appears. An 
editorial in the same number of that paper in 
which my short letter was published, to which 
N. G. Taylor has felt himself called upon to 
reply, was of such a character as forbids me ask- 
ing an insertion of my letter in the columns of 
that paper. 1 therefore have to lose the extended 
circulation of what I have to say through that 
medium. 

*It is not true, as has been charged, that I did 
attack Colonel Taylor. I was requested by the 
committee to answer the letter and send it to Dr. 
Brownlow, who was editor of the Whig, which 
paper had charged me by implication, before the 
election, with bargain, intrigue, and corruption. 
The same paper, as well as others, had, after the 
election, called upon me to define my position 
upon the questions referred to in that letter. Be- 
fore I had an opportunity to do so, I received a 
letter of invitation to attend a mass meeting from 
a committee of which the editor was chairman, 
and i-equested to send my answer to hijn. It was 
due to the committee, due to the party they repre- 
sented, and due to me, that I should define my 
Eosition upon these issues, upon which charges 
ad been preferred against me both before and 
after the election, pro and con., and how was I to 
do that without referring to the canvass in which 



the charges originated .' And after having made 
these grave charges in a circular too late for mc 
to answer before the election, many of which 
were reiterated in editorials and otherwise after 
the election, I am then formally called upon 
to answer; and if that answer, by mere implic;i- 
tion, involves the positions of those that have 
abused me, personally and politically, to their 
hearts' content, it is *" villainous, cowardly, and 
mean," on my part. There is a despotic unfair- 
ness and a tyrannical presumptuousness in this 
without a parallel in the annals of political con- 
troversy in this or any other country, and v/hicJi 
I know no American constituency v/ill tolerate. 

I have this evening read the letter of my hon- 
orable competitor for the honors and responsibil- 
ities which I now enjoy at your hands, with 
mingled feeUngs of astonishment and amusement. 
How the gentleman could legitimately ring him- 
self into a controversy in answer to the short, 
unguarded, and polite letter, in reply to one of 
I equal point and courtesy which I had the honor 
I to acknowledge from the committee of invita- 
tion to the mass meeting of the American party 
I at Knoxville, on the '';2:id of last August," I 
confess I am at a loss to know. Nevertheless, 
the gentleman has, with characteristic, intellect- 
ual, and political fecundity, after an^incubatioi.-! 
of three months, seen fit to publish to the world 
the result of his great deliberation, in reply to .a 
letter of half a dozen paragraphs, written in 
twenty minutes, without revision or correction, 
interlineation or punctuation. It affords me, 
however, fellow-citizens, unfeigned gratification 
to be able, under the legitimate and time-honored 
principle of sell-defense, and in obedience to the 
more profound mandates of moral, political, and 
personal self-preservation, to which the gentleman 
arrogantly refers so frequently i;i his elaborate pro- 
duction, in my humble and plain way to reply to 
his studied lucubrations. , I ask you, in all candor 
and sincerity, before 1 enter upon asjrecific exam- 
ination of the glaring inconsistencies ii.d contru- 



■ KnoiviJIc Whig. 



> Knosvillc WUig. 



dictions of the gentleman, to bear in mind that 
he seems, by his own frequent admissions, to be 
impressed with the fact that I had not referred to 
him when I truthfully said that I thought I was, 
according to the just and legitimate interpreta- 
tion of the Tennessee American platform, the 
only true exponent of the principles delineated in 
tliat platform. I 

Now, fellow-citizens, I regard this attack as 
gratuitous, voluntary, wanton, and unprovoked, i 
And let me say to you, my fellow-countrymen, i 
from the inmost recesses of a perhaps too con- ■ 
liding and grateful heart, that when I penned that i 
short, very short letter — too short ibr augmenta- 
tion, I had not the gentleman in my mind's eye, . 
with a view to his prejudice. I felt— I knew that 
a crisis was ap])roachmg in the political destinies | 
of the Republic; and it was in view of these ; 
I'acts — these grave and momentous facts, that I j 
embodied in the shortest possible space the his- 
toric- truths and political tenets that are in that 
letter. I did so with the most honest conviction, 
not to say prophetic certainty, that the compii- 
rated circumstances and insurmountable ditiicul- , 
ties that now exist in the organization of the ! 
'House of Representatives of the United States, i 
and seem to portend evil to the Union, would 
result from the new combination of parties. I am 
gratified that I wrote that letter, and 1 am more 
grateful to an intuitive republican simplicity, 
that I couched it in the language I did. Seventy- 
'live ineiiectual ballots prove conclusively that, 
whether by accident or design, I had correctly 
anticipated the result of the age. 

I now come to the practical specific discussion 
of the gentleman's strictures. So far as the tone, , 
temper, and phraseology of the gentleman's com- \ 
inentary arc concerned, I have only to say, that 
if he, o'r his partisan friends, derive any gratifi-, 
cation whatever from them, I most certainly envy 1 
them not that gratification, that notoriety, or that i 
distinction. The genileman's personalities, and 
the morbid and rankling acrimony of his taste 
and style cannot excite or delude me into the per- 
p.'-tration of an unjustifiable indiscretion, or con- 
tempt of the sound sense or good taste of an 
honorable, confiding, and patriotic constituency. 
He sets out in his unique epistle with a false as- 
sumption, and all his statements (for I have been 
unable to see or appreciate his arguments) are 
misconstructions of my language, and his conclu- 
sions of necessity are palpable misrepresentations. 
The gentleman's letter will strike every one who 
reads it as being a rehash of a circular which he 
■was pleased to publish two or three days before 
the election, in which he most certainly did me 
very great personal, as well as political injustice 
And in order to satisfy you, fellow-citizens, as 
well as the author of that letter, beyond the pos- 
sibility of doubt, that I did not refer to him in the 
letter to which he has been pleased to call your 
attention in this extraordinary and uncalled-for 
spirit, 1 will state a fact known of hundreds of 
mv friends as well as his in the region of country 
in Which I live. My friends desired me to i-eply 
to tlie ijeiitknian's illiberal circular, published too 
late ;for a reply to be made before the election. 
My answer was, that that circular did me very 
c^rei\t.injustice, personally and politically, but that 
I could not, as an honorable man, consent to re- 
open the Lgsucs Ojf tlue canvass after the election 



had passed off, and more particularly as I was 
the successful contestant for its honors. Conse- 
quently, I suffered at my own expense to pass, 
"unwhipped of justice," many misconstructions 
and misrejiresentalions in the circular addressed 
to you one or two days before the election. And, 
sirs, in the face of all these facts, when I stated, 
as I had a perfect and indefeasible right to do, a 
political truism in the correspondence with the 
committee, is it not remarkable that the gentle- 
man would consider himself personated or impli- 
cated.' Now, sirs, what was that incontrovert- 
ible fact.' Why,it wasthis: thatafler discussing, 
or enumerating rather, as I did, the principles of 
the Tennessee platform of the American party, I 
had stated in that letter, as I now state, beyond 
the possibility of successful contradiction, that 
that Nashville platform not only recognized, but 
actually indorsed and recommended', by two or 
three express resolutions, which were really the 
only political resolutions in the platform, all the 
compromise measures of 1850, for which I voted, 
and also the principles embodied in the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill, which reiterated the same doc- 
trines. Therefore, as I had voted for the com- 
promise bills of 185U, and was then, and had from 
Its inception, been the honest and steadfast advo- 
cate of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and my com- 
petitor had been the earnest and eloquent oppo- 
nent, both in Congress and in the canvass, of thi-s 
bill, I thought I was the true exponent of these 
principles. I so stated then; I reiterate it now; 
and I defy succes.'ful contradiction. It is true, 
unquestionably, as 1 understood the platform, as 
the people of Tennes.see understood it, and as the 
South understood it. Now, sirs, these are the 
only political issues that were in that platform.. 
AH other resolutions in that platform were either 
generalities which no one denied, and every orie 
affirmed, or they were sectarian or fonatical in 
their tendencies; and, although they may be right 
: in the abstract, cannot, without a change in the 
; Constitution of the United States, be carried into 
! practical effect. Allow me to say in my own 
1 justification that, althotigh I am opposed to 
I making religious or sectarian sentiment a politi- 
'■ cal test, and am of necessity and of choice an 
I advocate of civil and religious freedom, 1 am by 
j sympathy, education, interest, and associcUion, 
I an advocate of Protestant Christfeinity , and am, by 
I the most indissoluble ties that could bind a man 
I to a pious woman of high virtues, identified with 
1 the strongest branch of 'the Protestant church in 
the country in which I live. 

When I declared, as I did everywhere, that I 
was in favor of the fundamental principles of the 
Tennessee platform — as I was and am — I was 
lyiderstood everywhere, as 1 intended to be, that 
those fundamental principles were the constitu- 
tional Republican American principles of non- 
intervention and popular sovereignty, which were 
the life-blood of these doctrines, and which I 
advocated earnestly and honestly, with whatever 
ability I possessed, as being the only pohtical 
issues in the canvass, as tht-y were. So much 
for the pretext u])on which the gentleman hangs 
his long, personal, and high-soundmg letter. But 
I propose, now, to analyze the gentleman 3 
charges; and if you will do me the iionor of a 
careful and patient reading of this circular letter, 
I think I will satisfy every candid, honest, and 



impartial i-eador, wlietlier ho be my friend or my 
foe, that the gentlfman has attacked me without 
any just or reasonable pretext, and that his whole 
tirade of'malicious abuse has been founded on 
false assumptions and misconstructions, whether 
intentional or otherwise, and his conclusions are 
consequently misrepresentations. I will satisfy 
you that I was rie:ht, truthful, and honest in all 
that I said and did, and that I am still pursuing 
the same undeviatiiig; line of pr.'..cy and principle. 
If I do not do so, I am wiilinrr to resi2:n my seat 
in this Congress, and go home and surrender to 
the peojilo of my district the panoply of power 
and authority with which I am clad by their gen- 
erous partiality. The Kansas-Nebraska issues 
were not the only claims that 1 had to being the 
true exponent of the principles of the Tennessee 
platform. The only other solitary issue in that 
platform which was of a strictly political, and, 
consequently, of a strictly legitimate character. 
Was the one confining the offices and property of 
the Government in the hands of our own citizens, 
and keeping them out of the hands of foreigners. 
Upon this issue, embracing the subject of the 
public lands, you will recollect that I sustained 
that feature and jirinciple in the platform, and he 
opposed it by proposing his ^limerical scheme 
cf disposing of the public lands of the United 
States, which not only invited immigration in the 
most wholesale and uiiguarded mode, but actually 
transferred the lands from our own Government 
to Eur(^e, and from our own citizens to the ten- 
ants of the despotic nabobs of the Old World. 
Hence, you will see that I was sustained most 
fully in the assumption to the Knoxville commit- 
tee, that I thought myself the only true advocate 
of American principles as laid down in the Nash- 
ville or Tennessee platform, which was the basis 
of the canvass in the late election in Tennessee. 
I reiterate that statement, now, as a truism stand- 
ing out in bold relief, beyond the reach of suc- 
cessful contradiction. 

I dislike exceedingly to indulge in personal 
pique; nor will I, except by quotation from the 
gentleman's letter. He has been pleased, as you 
will see by referring to his letter, to connect with 
my name, in an evident feeling and style of de- 
rision and ridicule, the prefix of " honorable" in 
many places, and by frequent repetition wholly 
unnecessary. Now, it is known to all my ac- 
quaintances everywhere, that I place as little 
estimate upon, or importance in, titles of distinc- 
tion as any one living; but I would say to the 
gentleman that, were I disposed to retort upon 
him, I could say, trntlifuUy, that he possesses 
as many empty titles of distinction as any gen- 
tleman in the whole catalogue of great men in the 
State of Tennessee. But regarding all such per- 
sonal inuendoes as unworthy your consideration, 
I omit then* use. 

1 know it will be said by the gentleman, and 
perhaps by many of his friends, that the ques- 
tion of naturalization was a political issue. Why, 
sirs, that is a purely legislative question, or 
measure, defined specifically by the Constitution 
of the United States, and applies to one pnrty 
as well as another — to one Congress as well as 
another — and to one individual who happens 
to be a member as well as another, subject, 
at all times and under all circumstances, to the 
Constitution. The principle exists by express 



provision in the Constitution, subject to the con- 
trol of Congress from time to time, provided it 
be made uniform throughout the United States. 
And if you desire to change the principle, make 
the issue directly upon the Constitution, which 
is the only practical mode of reaching the ques- 
tion as a finality, or of changing it as a perma- 
nent corrective. You can place restrictions upon 
them— -you can say who shall and who shall not 
come in under the commercial regulations in 
American vessels, which will practically exclude 
paupers, who are a legal tax upon their Govern- 
ment, because they have not the means, and are 
not by that disability recognized. It will prac- 
tically prevent felons and criminals from voting, 
because either constitutes a disability under all 
the election laws perhaps in the United States. 
Kut you cannot, by any change or modification 
of the laws, prevent any foreigner from coming 
to the country who has means to bring him here, 
or can get here by any legal mode; nor can you 
disfranchise him after he gets here, unless it be 
by the operation of some disability or crime that 
would exclude a native-born citizen, provided 
the foreigner complies with the existing legal and 
constitutional requisitions upon the subject of 
naturalization. But I will allow, for the sake of 
argument or illustration, that that was an issue 
in the canvass. I ask you to test and measure 
our positions by th(^ standard erected in the Ten- 
nessee platform upon that question. You will 
recollect that the gentleman planted himself upon 
a bill which he introduced during the last Con- 
gress, containing a specific provision as to time, 
and many extreme, and some unconsticutional, 
provisions. It will be recollected that the Nash- 
ville^ platform did not take any specific or distinct- 
ive grounds upon the subject, but recommended 
such revision or amendment in the laws upon 
that question as would conform to the necessities 
of the case, and to the Constitution. It seems 
that those who drafted that platform understood 
the laws and Constitution of the United States, 
and conformed to their spirit. What was my po- 
sition at Dandridge, at the first meeting at which 
I had the honor of measuring arms with my dis- 
tinguished competitor in that memorable con- 
test? Did I not then and there, in the presence 
and hearing of hundreds of intelligent citizens, 
repudiate the gentleman's bill, and take substan- 
tially the same ground that the platform after- 
wards took, by declaring that I would, if I was 
in Congress, and the subject came up, vote for 
such change, modification, and extension of time, 
whether it was to ten, twenty, or fifty years, as 
I thought at the time was demanded, upon in- 
vestigation, by the interests of the country, and 
conformable to the Constitution of the United 
States. I say that now, and I will do it. I did 
say, at some points in the canvass, that my opin- 
ion was that the existing law, with the discretion 
that the courts now have, was sufliciently safe as 
applied to that class of immigrants that ought, 
under any circumstances, to be made citizens — 
that the fault, as applied to them, was in the 
courts, and not in the law. I say that to-day. 
Is tlicre any inconsistency in this.' I think not. 
The gentleman has been pleased, by the use 
of various personal and disrespectful epithets, to 
designate his estimate of me. I say to him, with- 
out quoting his c/josie and 6caw?i/i(/ language, that 



6 



it has been my habit through life to treat every- 
one as a gentleman, and so it is now; but when 
gentlemen voluntarily, maliciously, and without 
«.nyjust cause, tendrr to me unmistakable evi- 
denftes of disrespect, I reciprocate most cordially 
their proffer. I therefore say to the gentleman 
that our intercourse, personal and political, is at 
an end. 

The next charge is, that I pledged myself at 
Newport, at our last appointment in the canvass, 
where we finally separated, to go home and de- 
cline the contest. Upon this point there is a 
clear misunderstandino- that, in all human prob- 
ability,, will never be changed. It is, of course, 
exceedingly unpleasant to have diiferenccs of 
this nature when it is impossible to remove them. 
If the gentleman understood me to make the 
statement in tliat conversation that he attributes ' 
to me, he most certainly misunderstood me. I 
had no wish or design to leave such an impres- 
sion upon the gentleman's mind. Had he, when 
he assumed in his circular, on the eve of the 
election, and in his letter to which I am now re- 
plying — when he undertook to retail a private 
conversation between him and myself, to which 
there was no earthly witness, given all the con- 
versation, thereby presenting fairly before the 
community both sides of the cast;, it would have 
been, in my opinion, unnecessary to have men- 
tioned it at all, because it would, as far as it is 
j)0ssible to do, have explained itself, and then, 
perhaps,! would have had no cause of complaint, 
although the circumstances had thrown the onus 
of that interview upon me. But what are the 
- facts .' The gentleman selects from that conver- 
sation such items as will place me in a false atti- 
tude, and leaves everything else out. The gen- 
tleman, before he enters upon this point, makes 
the following quotation from a well settled princi- 
pls of moral law: " I have been accustomed to 
luiderstand the moral writers to maintain that 
the essence of fols(ihood consists in making a 
false impression with a design to mislead." I, 
too, understand Paley, in his celebrated treati.se 
upon moral philosoi)hy, and other eminent au- 
thors upon moral law and moral principle, to 
hold, that when a witness voluntarily puts him- 
self upon the stand, or is even put upon the 
stand as a witness in chief, and assumes to give 
a general, much less a private, conversation, and 
either adds to, or omits, any part of that conver- 
sation, by which the public mind is misled, that 
that, too, is the essence of falsehood. Now, 
what are the facts and circumstances connected 
with this whole affair.' And [ must ask your 
indulgence until I give them in detail, because, 
as I have stated, there is a clear misunderstand- 
ing between the gentleman and myself, which 
can only bo settled by the circumstances of tl»e 
ease. 

The gentleman states in his letter that I sought 
a private conversation with him at J^etcport, in 
which 1 promised that I would go home and quit 
the canvass, which tere.iinated on that day, upon 
condition that he would not make the issue of the 
American question upon me in the discussion of 
that day. Now, sir, there is another well-settled 
principle of moral law, of common law, of statute 
law, and theological jurisprudence, which says 
that no statement is evidence in a private conver- 
sation, in which the parties are equally interested. 



unless it bfe a point upon which the parties both 
agree. What jjrought about this interview be- 
tween the gentleman and myself.' It was at the 
special request of his friends. The speaking at 
Newport was on Monday, after the candidates 
for governor had spoken at Dandridge on Satur- 
day, and it was the week before the election. 
We had but one other appointment, which was 
the Newport appointment, on the next Monday. 
There were three candidates on the track, and 
intense excitement prevailed. I had been defeated, 
and so had he, in the ]>receding regular election, 
in a similar contest. I had given way in the 
special election to him, and he was elected. 
V/hen the next election or canvass came around, 
I felt that I was entitled to the track, and told my 
friends that I intended to canvass the district, and 
that when I had made the canvass I was in their 
hands, and would do whatever they said was fair 
and honorable. I did not wish to be defeated 
again, and my friends were highly solicitous that 
1 should not. 

On the Saturday preceding the Newport ap- 
pointment — at Dandridge — an effort was made to 
settle the affair between us, Mr. Graham still on 
the track. My friends were much excited fox- 
fear I would be d(;feated in this attitude of things 
again. My reply was plain, natural, and honest. 
Said I, " Uentlemen, I am in the hands of my 
friends. I know that they will neither do, nor 
submit to, anything dishonorable. Whatever 
they say I will do." I will not say what*jpassed 
between his friends and mine. I leave that to 
them. But my friends stated to me that his 
friends made no fair propositions. He left there 
on the evening of the same day, or early on Sun- 
day morning — I am not certain which, but, at all 
events, before I did, to attend, as I understood, 
a meetmg at some point in the direction of our 
appointment at Newport. I had no conversa- 
tion with him after 1 was approached at Dan- 
dridge, on this subject, until Monday, at New- 
port, a short time before the speaking commenced, 
I having reached that point some time before 
him on Monday. When I got there, tliereAvas 
much excitenn^nt in consequence of a misunder- 
standing between him and Governor Johnson, 
at Dandridge, on Saturday, and his friends ap- 
plied to me for the facts in regard to it, as I was 
present, and heard what had occurred. I made 
the statement fairly, as I understood it, to them, 
although 1 thought it an illiberal request under 
tlie circumstances. When the g(Mitleman got in, 
his friends stated to him my version of the affair, 
whereupon he replied that I had done him full 
justice. His friends there, as they had done in 
Jefferson, expressed a wish that he and I would 
have no controversy upon the American ques- 
tion. I replied that he had brought the issue intO' 
the canvass for the; purpose, as I thought, of ob- 
taining an unfair advantage of me, and that I 
should certainly meet the question in that spnut 
in which it was presented. They stated that, al- 
thou^-h Newport was one of his strongest points 
in the district, (which I well knew,) they would 
just as soon support me as him; and, in order 
that our friends might, in future, be able to coop 
crate with each other, they hoped we would haVg 
no difficulty about it, &c. When we went to th,. 
church, we walked out into the grove befor 
speaking— at my suggestion, it is true— and 



told Taylor that I had a word for him. While 
we were out, I mentioned to him tlie desire "of 
our friends. He instantly, and, as I thought, 
with some emotion , asked if our friends had come 
to any terms before I left Dandridge ? I stated 
distinctly and unequivocally to him that they 
had not, to my knowledge. He then asked me 
if I thought there was any probability of their 
doing so? I told him that I could not tell, but 
that 1 was in the hands of my friends, and that 
whatever they said, I would do. Whereupon 
tlie gentleman said that he had no objection to let 
the matter pass, in the hope that, should our 
friends fail to agree in that contest, they might 
at a subsequent time; and that, if I would not 
make the issue of his vote on the French .spolia- 
tion bill, and my defense of the President's veto 
of that bill on that day, as it was the last appoint- 
ment, he would say nothing about the misunder- 
standing on the American question. We mutually 
agreed to this. I call upon the entire crowd, 
which was large, and three fourths of whom were 
his friends, to bear testimony to the fact that I 
did not make the issue of his vote upon the spolia- 
tion bill on that day, which is the first circum- 
stance going to show that it was a mutual agree- 
ment, and that the considerations were equal. 
This interview, you will recollect, fellow-citizens, 
took place before the speaking. 

Now, I call upon the hundreds ofvoters that wit- 
nessed that protracted discussion, to state whether 
or not I did not say to them, at the close of my 
speech, that the canvass was ended, and that I 
should leave immediately for Dandridge, where I 
should write and publish a circular, embodying 
the issues of the canvass, and that I then and 
there gave my competitors notice of that fact, 
and that I would be a candidate until the second 
day of August, before which time, (which was 
the day of the election,) until the polls were 
closed, I asked them to examine my principles 
and views as laid down in that circular, and vote 
according to their judgment of policy and prin- 
ciple. The discussion closed with tliis, and we 
repaired to our respective hotels: I, in haste, to 
leave for Dandridge, and he and Mr. Graham to 
attend other appointments which they had in the 
opposite direction. I took supper, walked down 
to Mr. Graham's room, and bid him farewell, 
Colonel Jack, of Cocke county, with whom I was 
to travel to liis residence, waiting for me on the 
platform. I then went to Colonel Taylor's room, 
where 1 found several of his friends, ivho must 
recoiled ichat passed between us. I took leave of 
him in this precise language. Said I, " Colonel, 
We have had a protracted, warm, and excited 
canvass, but I am gratified to have it in my power 
to say, truthfully, that I can now, as in all former 
contests, say thai our differences have been polit- 
cal and not personal." To which he replied, 
'• that he could reciprocate that most fully." I 
rejoined, " tha.t I wished him great success in all 
his undertakings but one." Whereupon he in- 
terposed by saying, in the most happy manner, 
•• that I need not state that; that he perfectly un- 
derstood that I did not wish him to be elected, 
for the reason that I hoped and expected to be 
the successful candidate in that contest myself." 
^This is the last time I have seen him, and the 
last word I have spoken to him. This is a true 
aud faithful account of the facts and circumstances 



as I recollect them. Take the case, fellow-citi- 
zens; you are fully competent to decide it. 

What are the false assumptions and charges 
in reference to the letter written to the Knoxville 
committee.' Why, that I attempted to make the 
impression that T had not been, nor was not, a 
member of the American party, and that it would 
be, in my estimation, compromising my self- 
respect to associate with such men as Colonel 
Bell, Colonel Gentry, and Major Donelson; and 
furthermore, that the letter was au insult to the 
American party. Neither of these c'ssumptions 
is true. The first charge is based upon the fact, 
that I had stated that I had adopted the party by 
"simple vindication, "as he puts it. The "Knox- 
ville Whig" had it " invitation," when it wa9 
written, and intended to be "initiation." I sup- 
posed, when the word was changed in the printed 
letter, that it was a typographical error made by 
the compositor, but not of sufficient importance 
to require correction, because I had used the 
words "joined and adopted," which I supposed, 
aud still suppose, made the same impression. So 
far from denying "Initiation, ' ' that was exactly the 
word used. If I was so unfortunate as to insult 
the American party in the phraseology of that 
letter,! confess I should feel hereafter that it waa 
as well to use language of opposite signification 
as to use that which was expressive of your in- 
tention. I most certainly had no earthly inten- 
tion of insulting the American party, nor any 
individual member of the party, or of the com- 
mittee of invitation. As far as my acquaintance 
extended at that time, I had no cause, and most 
certainly no wish, to insult either of them. Some 
of them I did not know, but had no doubt then, 
as I have not now, but that they were also gen- 
tlemen. 

The next charge in reference to that letter is, 
that I was apprehensive of compromising my 
self-respect by associating with such " disrep- 
utable fellows as Bell, Gentry, and Donelson." 
Now, sirs, I used no such language as that — 
meant no such thing as that— nor is the language 
I used susceptible of any such construction. I 
have the honor of a personal acquaintance with 
each of these distinguished gentlemen, and that 
is sufficient evidence that I neither said nor meant 
any such thing. What did 1 say, and what did 
1 mean? What was the just interpretation, and 
only legitimate construction of that language? I 
state in that letter, at'ter defining my position 
upon the great questions of policy and principle 
discussed in a preceding part of this circular, and 
adverting to the treatment I had received at the 
hands of that party, that I could not consent, in 
view of these facts, if I were otherwise inclined, 
without compromising my self-respect, to glorify 
a party in popular harangue that had so recently 
attempted, through all the power and compUca- 
tion of its internal machinery, to crush me polit- 
ically. What is meant, and intended to be meant, 
by this language ? Not that I would be disgraced 
by an association with any gentleman who at- 
tended that meeting; but if I were to "glorify," 
under these circumstances, that party, I would 
be a fit subject for the condemnation and contempt 
of every honest and honorable man in the com- 
munity. I say so now. You will pardon me, 
fellow-citizens, for being thus specific in this, 
matter, because I know, and you know, that there 



8 



IS a settled design, and a stereotyped purpose, on 
the part of my enemies, to hunt mc down, and 
to misconstrue everything I say and do, if it can 
tlicreby be turned to account against me. 

The 2iext thrust the gentleman makes is in 
reference to my tenacity upon the compromise 
measures of 1850, and says, that this "is only 
equaled by my imbecility in support of them;" 
and, in another part of his strictures, he charges 
me with idiocy and insanity upon hypothesis. 
Well, I have never thought myself very smart. 
I have neve; made much pretension to that claim, 
and I m-iy he an idiot, a monomaniac, or an im- 
becile; and if I cannot boast the high claims to 
genius, talent, and oratory, that the gentleman 
(joes, it is my misfortune and not my fault. The 
gentleman boasts in his letti;r, verij modestly, of 
having, so far as he M"as concerned, conducted 
the canvass with " Christian fairness and liber- 
ality." I think it is ill-befitting that Christian 
fairness and liberality, which he so gracefully 
adorns and exemplifies, to sport with the intel- 
lectual misfortunes of an inferior competitor, 
particularly when that invidious distinction in- 
volves the unbounded lil^erality and partiality of 
the great Author of that same Christianity to 
the gentleman himself. But lie yields the argu- 
ment upon this point, and the policy involved in 
these great measures, by admitting that he was 
himself an advocate of them. Well, these meas- 
ures initiated the great princijjles of non-inter- 
vention and popular sovereignty, wiiich are the 
fundnmental principles of the Kansas-Neljraska 
bill, first incorporated in the Utah bill, the New 
Mexico bill, and then the Washington bill divid- 
ing Oregon; striking down, in effect, the doctrine 
of congressional restriction of every description, 
including the ordinance of 1787, the Wilmnt pro- 
viso, th(! Missouri restriction, &c. The Kansas 
and Nebraska bill does this self-same thing. 
Now, how it is possible for the gentleman to 
admit that he could, u]3on principle, support the 
one and oppose the othor, and maintain his con- 
sistency, is, to my mind, incomprehensible. Per- 
haps I am insane upon that point; doubtless you, 
fellow-citizens, are also. 

I am charged with being inconsistent, hypo- 
critical, and dishonestin my declarations in regard 
to the American organization while I was a mem- 
ber, and during the canvass. That charge is 
based upon the assumption that I had been initi- 
ated at Dandridge, and that I stated, at sundry 
places and upon difTerent days, that " I knew 
nothing of any Know Nothing or American, or 
any other secret political organization, and that 
if there were any such secret political organiza- 
tion I was opposed to it, and that I knew nothing 
behind the platform, and had never been in any 
meeting or council of said secret organization. 
With one exception this is true; and for the sake 
of the argument I will allow that also, for it is 
immaterial. And in addition to these statements 
I had acknowledged to members of the order, 
privately, that I had been initiated. I will leave 
nothing out, for I intend to deal fairly in this 
whole matter. That I was initiated in a public 
counting room, in the presence of two or three 
gentlemen, is true, but that I did anything but 
what I was bound in honor and obligation to do, 
according to my construction and estimate of 
it, is not true, I never knew anything of the 



secret organization, and do not to this day of my 
owii knowledge, except thd simple act of initi- 
ation, which is precisely what I stated in the 
Knoxville letter. The obligation of initiation 
was not in the name of "Know Nothing," or 
"American, "but an entirely different name, v/hich 
I will not mention, but which is known to be true 
by every gentleman who was ever thus initiated. 
That name was not put in the obligation for any 
other purpose than to evade the disclosure of the, 
very fact that the gentleman complains of me for 
not doing. That obligation made it the imperative 
duty of every one to whom it v,-as administered to 
deny the existence ofanysuch secretorganization, 
or the membership of yourself, or any one else, 
unless it was to one whom you knew from ofScial 
recognition to be a member; then you are re- 
quired to make yourself known privately. There- 
fore, if the gentleman is correct in his statement 
that I was initiated, then it follows of tourse that 
I was sworn not to reveal the existence of any 
such organization, my membership or the mem- 
bership of another, unless it were by private rec- 
ognition: and if his charges are true in reference 
to initiation, I did the very things that I wtts 
required to do, and to have done otherwise would 
have been, as I construed it, to have sworn false- 
ly. The principles of the ]iarty were contained 
in the platform, which principles— at least those 
that were political — I advocated, but the secrecy 
and the oaths I never approved, but opposed pub- 
licly, (or at least expressed my disapprobation 
publicly,) and privately and conscientiously; and 
if the gentleman makes this a test he will, to my 
certain knowledge, exclude hundreds of the best 
members of the party, for that is the common 
sentiment, so far as I know, in my country. I 
see no dishonesty or inconsistency in this. 

The charges on this point, taken in connec- 
tion with the facts in regard to the obligation of 
initiation, so far from implicating me, prove con- 
clusively that I observed and preserved strictly 
and technically every injunction, great and small, 
as long as I remained under its ban. And to 
have done otherwise would have fastened upon 
me the very charges that have been charged upon 
me by my enemies. Now, sirs, what was the 
course piu'sued by many of my enemies, who 
belonged, as they said, to the organization.' It 
was, that while they were usingcvery means, fair 
and foul, to prejudice me with the American 
party, and thereby unite them upon my competi- 
tor, they were, on the other hand, giving inform- 
ation to the enemies of the order in the face of 
all these injunctions, that they knew me officially 
to have been initiated. These things coming to 
my knowledge, determined me at an early day in 
the canvass to dissolve my official connection 
with the party, although I was then, as I am now, 
an advocate of the political principles laid down 
in the Tennessee platform. These political ques- 
tions, which I have mentioned in this circular, 
and which I discussed at length every day during 
the canvass, I knew to be the only ones in the plat- 
form that could legally and constitutionally come 
before Congress as subjects of legislation. I had 
the same opinion of the twelfth section of the 
Philadelphia platform. I knew it to be nothing 
more nor less than non-intervention. That I 
committed an error in this matter I confess. That 
error was in taking the obligation of initiation. 



» 



It is wrong in principle and practice for any man 
to bind himself, hand and foot, by a secret obli- 
gation which seals his lips, while it allows others, 
who put a difl'erent construction upon it, or are 
less scrupulous in its observance, to war upon ji 
him with a two-edged sword, as was done by j 
some of my enemies during that canvass. This ;{ 
fact is of itself sufficient justification for every- jj 
thing which I said or did during that contest. «I |l 
would do the same to-morrov," if I wen under the ij 
same obligation, but that I will certainly never ,: 
be. My enemies are ready to ask, why did you '• 
not, if your convictions were against the organ- 
zation, dissolve your official connection with it I 
then ? My r.'ply to that is frank, fuW, and sincere. ;, 
I never had any official association or connection . 
with the organization except the simple act of i' 
initiation, as 1 have stated time and again; and 
as soon as I received the obligation, and had time | 
to deliberate upon, and investigate the conse- ; 
quenccs and abuses to which it was incident, and i 
more particularly v/hen those abuses began to \ 
dcvclope themselves in the progress of the can- ; 
vass, my conscience and my judgment disap- 
proved them. The reasons 'that prevented me! 
from taking the course 1 felt due to myself and I 
friends, were of the most honorable and worthy 
character, and are known to be true, for I made 
them known to many of my friends who were 
then, and still are, so far as T know, members of 
the party. We were in the midst of an excited 
and active canvass. I knew that course would 
secure my election; and while I would have been ; 
honest and consistent in my opinions had I done 
so, I knew at the same time that it would sub- | 
ject ms to improper censure, and that it would ; 
be charged that I had done so in order to secure 
my election. I determined, therefore, to suffer I 
defeat, and so stated to my confidential friends, ' 
rather than secure an election by withdrawing at 
that time in the then attitude of tilings, although 
I felt then, as I now feel, that it was my duty to 
do so after I was released from those doubtful 
and improper responsibilities, which I did. 

1 do not know that I understand what the gen- 
tlemen mean by obtaining office by frand, or of 
sacrificing principle for place. If they mean in 
the first "instance that 1 would not have been 
t;li;cted if I had not been incidentally connected 
with the American party, the answer is plain and 
pointed, that I havi; not an earthly doubt but that 
if the contest had been decided solely upon the 
national and political issues in the contest, my 
majority would not have been less than fifteen 
liundred votes. I have not the remotest doubt 
but that there is that majority to-day in the dis- 
trict in favor of those questions upon which I 
based the canvass. It cannot be disguised that 
tlie coated ivas madeto result upon sectarianism, 
and not upon the political issue's involved. That 
1 received a small fraction of the American party 
I do not deny. But that I lost three Democrats 
for every American I received is equally true, 
because of my indorsement of the American plat- 
form, and because everybody was satisfied that 
I had taken the initiatory steps in the party, and 
would not, for the purpose of increasing my vote, 
cut myself loose from its obligations. Take the 
vole in the Governor's election, and you will see 
at once that Taylor got Gentry's vote in every 
county ill the district, except Jefferson and Sevier, 



while I ran behind Johnson 400 in Sullivan, 
300 in Washington, 200 in Carter and Johnson, 
200 in Hawkins and Hancock, and 300 in Greene 
and Cocke, making in the aggregate 1400 votes. 
And it will be recollected, too, that Mr. Graham 
received a very fair vote in several remote points 
in the district, owing to a misapprehension that 
he was still a candidate. But if the gentlemen 
mean that I gained votes by and in consequence 
of^he misunderstanding at Newport, it is even 
more fallacious and absurd, because the returns 
show conclusively that he received the entire 
Know Nothing vote of that county, as compared 
! with Gentry's vote and with Fletcher's, while I 
I lacked lOO" of getting the anti-Know Nothing 
i vote, as compared with Johnson's vote and with 
i Arnold's— which resulted, I have no doubt, from 
I the simple fact of our agreeing on that day not to 
' discuss the American question and the French 
' spoliation bill; and so tar, therefore, from my 
i gaining by the operation, 1 lost 100 votes. I say 
to you, fellow-citizens, tliat I want no otfice. I 
! have never been an office-seeker, and I never 
\ shall be. I have never held an office except from 
! a sense of duty to my friends, and I never will 
j hold one from any other consideration; and I 
! would rather to-day advocate the great questions 
' mentioned in this address as a volunteer than as 
I an official. 

I That the adoption of the party at the time I 
^ did was, in my judgment, an oversight, I have 
i already admitted; but that I should have fallen 
I into the error at the time, and under the extraor- 
i dinary state of circumstances foreshadowing the 
j alarming cast of political elements at that period, 

I is reasonable, natural, and patriotic. The great 
i Whig party of the country, to which I had hcrc- 

;| tofore belonged, a large preponderance of which, 
i numerically, was north of Mason and Dixon's 
i line, had in I8.1O, in the memorable contest in 
j that Congress, denationali/.ed itself by the north- 
! crn members of the party in solid column rcfus- 
! ing to vote for those national measures in the 

I I compromise favoring and securing southern in- 
! terests and institutions, while a large portion of 
' the Democratic party in the North, who were m 
;i the minority in that section of the Confederacy, 
;, generously came forward and united with the 

; South, consummated those measures, and tcrm- 
t't inated the contest. Again, in 1852, near the close 
''i of Mr. Fillmore's administration, that distin- 
! guishcd statesman came before the convention 
i of the Whig party at Baltimore, for nomination 
! for President. What occurs in the convention.' 
i Th(! delegates of the Whig party from the North, 
! who, as 1 have said, constituted the largest ele- 
I meat of strength in the party, again denation- 
; alized and disorganized its forces by trampling 

I down and defeating the most available man of the 
! party, wlien every solitary delegate from fifteen 
H southern States were, as one man, voting for him 
''for almost a week in succession. And why.' 

II :\ot because Mr. Fillmore's education, his sym- 
,i pathics, and his antecedents were ill favor of 
i| southern institutions, or pro-slavery in the ab- 
\' stract, but simply for the reason that he had, in 
:j his executive capacity, administered the Govern- 
^1 meiit and executed the laws in accordance with 

I the spirit and inicat of th.' Constitution, and 

li thereby preserved, protected, and dei'ended the 

interests and institutions of tlie southern section 



10 



of the Confederacy. And allow your humble 
Representative, who was a participant and an 
eye-witnoss to all these facts, to assure you that 
these things exerted a moral influence and moral 
power wliich contributed more to the defeat of 
the unrivaled chieftain, the distinguished states- 
man and patriot, who was the gallant standard- 
bearer in that contest, than anything else and 
every other issue. 

What next transpires in the progress of pdlit- 
ical events in the country ? The present Execu- 
tive of the nation was elected, by an overwhelming 
majority, as the Chief Magistrate of the Union, 
standing upon the great national and conservative 
platform erected by the compromise Congress of 
1850; and entered upon the discharge of his con- 
stitutional functions, pursuing, as far as I have 
ever been able to see, the same direct line of policy 
marked out by that great event in the legislation 
of the country, in the footsteps of his " illustrious 
predecessor." No sooner had the policy of his 
Administration been foreshadowed, than all the 
anti-slavery elements of the North, backed by 
disaflected reinforcements who were conservative 
and national in their sentiments in his own party, 
rolled on like a wave of devastation by recruits 
from the disorganized elements of opposition, still 
lashing with the fury of defeat, and, like an irre- 
sistible avalanche , threatening the utter demolition 
of his Administration. Just at this appalling 
crisis of affairs, a new and unprecedented party 
springs into being, proposing to unite and har- 
monize all the conservative and national material 
upon the broad pedestal of the Constitution, es- 
ciiewing all party names, distinctions, and pro- 
clivities, and to form, as I understood it, upon 
the principles of non-intervention and popular 
sovereignty, as laid down in the compromise 
measures of 1850— a great conservative. Union, 
constitutional party. Having been a member of 
the compromise Congress of 1850, and having, 
in my feeble way, advocated that legislation," I 
was, of course, under the novelty of first impres- 
sions, eager to adopt it, and did adopt it in good 
faith, hoping and believing at the time that it 
niight prove a panacea to all the political evils and 
diseases of the age; but, alas ! the sequel is a sad 
commentary upon my hopes and my judgment. 

What is the next proceeding that arrests my 
attention? It is the platforni of the Nashville 
convention of the American party, adopting and 
publishing to the world various resolutions, as 
the tenets of the new party of the nation. What 
sire those resolutions? One in favor of the Bible; 
one in favor of the Union; one in favor of the 
Constitution; one in favor of the rights of the 
States; one in favor of vested rights; one recom- 
mending such change, modification, and exten- 
sion, if necessary, of the naturalization laws of 
the United States, as the necessities of the coun- 
try demanded, not inconsistent with the Consti- 
tution; one indorsing the compromise measures 
of 1850; one recommending the eradication of all 
geographical and congressional distinctions by 
Congress— this refers, of course, to the ordinance 
of 1787, the Wihnot proviso, and the Missouri 
restriction; one recognizing and indorsing the 
doctrines of non-intervention and popular sov- 
ereignty, as laid down both in the legislation of 
1850, and in the Kansas and Nebraska bill of 
1834. I confess that when this platform appeared, 



although upon reflection and deliberation, I had 
reasoned myself into opposition to the secret ol)- 
ligations and machinery of the order, I felt forti- 
fied. My hopes were buoyant of success in the 
new enterprise of nationalizing and republicani- 
zing and Americanizing the seeming incongruou.«( 
and discordant elements of the political material 
of the United States. This was in May last. On 
v^ rolled, upon the swelling tide of apparent pros- 
perity. The next event that breaks and ripplcB 
the smooth and placid current of events is the 
assembling, for the first time , of the delegates of the 
thirty-one States of the American party, at Phila- 
delphia, in the month of June, 1855. The con- 
vention organizes; thirty-one States represented, 
sixteen southern States, including California, 
admitted into the Union in 1850, upon the basis 
of the compromise incorporating the doctrine of 
non-intervention and popular soverc gnty, acting 
of course with the South, although a free State, 
because that is all the South asks. This gives 
the South, in that convention, the advantage of 
one vote, allowing one vote from each State to be 
detailed upon the committees, which is usual, for 
I was not there. The committee retires, drafts a 
preamble and resolutions, resolving in favor of 
various extra-political questions, or questions of 
ordinary policy and legislation; and, amongst 
others, the twelfth section in favor of non-inter- 
vention and popular sovereignty, as laid down in 
the compromise of 1850, and in the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill of 1854. Whereupon the entire 
delegation of the fourteen northern States instantly 
retire from the convention, leaving the southern 
delegates almost " alone in their glory," — sound 
to the core upon all constitutional and national 
questions, but without any sympathy or cooper- 
ation from the North u]ion those the only strictly 
national questions promulgated by the party. I 
must have seen, at once, that that could not be a 
national party, when two thirds of its numerical 
strength, as subsequent events have demontsrated , 
had repudiated the fundamental, national, consti" 
tutional principles of the party in that convention, 
and gone over to the great anti-slavery party of 
the North, known as the Republican party of the 
country, now voting by their Representatives for 
Mr. BaNks, of Massachusetts, for Speaker. 

This brings us regularly down to the meeting 
of the present Congress. The party, or at least 
a majority of those voting for Mr. Richardson, 
met in caucus, and adopted a platform embracing 
the principles of the legislation of 1850, and 
especially the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska 
bill, and nominated William A. Richardsok, 
who was the leader in the House of Re])resenta- 
tives in reporting and passing through that body 
that bill, and also a resolution in favor of civil and 
religious liberty. This platform came fully up to 
my views of policy, and I knew the nominee to 
be sound upon all the national constitutional 
questions of the day, forming a complete national 
league spanning the whole continent, and cm- 
bracing members of the Democratic party from 
every State in the Union, as well as members of 
the old Whig party from the States of Georgia, 
North Carohna, Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, 
and Tennessee; purging itself of the last vestig*> 
or remnant of Free-Soitism, or any other ism 
known to the politics of the day. I have planted 
myself upon this platform; I have enrolled my- 



11 



self in this organization; and, "sink or swim, 
survive or perish," I intend to adliere to its prin- 
ciples and maintain its doctrines, honestly and 
faithfully, as long as it shall maintain its nation- 
ality. Between us and the Republican party of 
the North there is an insurmountable barrier — 
a deep, wide, dark, turbid gulf, beyond which 
we can never go. Mr. Fuller, of Pennsylvania, 
the candidate of the national Americans, is a 
gentleman of character and eminent qualification, 
whom I have known long and well, and for whom 
I entertain the very highest respect; whom, 
although he has stated publicly on the floor of the 
House, that if he had been in the last Congress, he 
would have voted against the Kansas-Nebraska 
bill, and would not meet my view.s and positions 
as fully and be as acceptable to me as Mr. Rich- 
ardson on that account, I regard, nevertheless, 
practically sound; for he has declared that he 
would not vote to restore the Missouri compro- 
mise, and that if Kansas, or any other Territory, 
north or south of the line of 36° 30', should apply 
for admission as a State, and he were in Congress, 
he would vote for its admission, either with or 
without slavery in its constitution. So do I re- 
gard those that are voting for him from the South 
as equally sound as him or myself upon those 
questions. 

It is, therefore, not a que&cion of theory or of 
policy between us and that gallant band, nearly 
all of whom are southern men, but it is a prac- 
tical question of expediency and safety, as to 
whether it shall join our organization upon these 
great fundamental, constitutional, political ques- 
tions, or maintain its independent, separate, and 
distinctive organization. That there can only 
exist, practically, but two political parties in a 
Government, all history and experience of this 
and every other country abundantly attest, and of 
which the present state of things in Congress is a 
clear and convincing illustration; because we see 
the constitutional power and authority and the 
whole machinery of the Government at once para- 
lyzi?d, unable to move a fiber, a nerve, or a muscle, 
without striking down the whole organic struc- 
ure of the Government, and surrendering it into 
the hands of a minority — formidable, it is true, 
for skill, energy, and talent, but whose princi- 
ples we believe, if successful, subversive of the 
Government and destructive of constitutional lib- 
erty itself. It is not, therefore, in my judgment, 
a question between the southern Americans and 
the northern Republican party, because the south- 
ern or national organization of the American 
party is by far the weakest element of the three. 
It is, then, practically and essentially a question 
and a contest between them and the present na- 
tional organization in support of Mr. Richard- 
son or some other national or southern man for 
Speaker, upon their platform, embracing the doc- 
trines of the Constitution, the doctrines of non- 
intervention and popular sovereignty, and civil 
and religious liberty, gathering up and embody- 
ing elementary strength from both the old polit- 
ical 1 arties in Congress, and national conserva- 
tive constitutional elements and material from 
each and every party and caste of preference 
throughout the country. The only practical 
point, then, is, whether the larger element shall i 
absorij the lesser, or the lesser the greater. It is 



a reasonable common-sense question, which you, 
fellow-citizens, are fully competent to decide. I 
submit it, so far as I am concerned, to your deci- 
sion. 

Lest there should be any doubt as to the posi- 
tion of Mr. Richardson, the candidate for whom 
I have cast every vote that I have given, I will 
give you his origin, his education, and his record. 
I have endeavored to oljtain a copy of his model 
eff"ort in support of the Constitution and the South , 
pending the discussion on the Kansas and Ne- 
braska bill in the last Congress, but have failed 
to do so. Nevertiieless, I know his history. I 
served with him from 1849 to 1853. I know that 
he voted for the compromise measures of 1850, 
including the fugitive slave law. He was the 
godfather, as the Abolitionists style him, of the 
Kansas and Nebraska bill. I know that he voted 
against the Wilmot proviso, as the Journals will 
show, M'hen the South was seemingly occupying 
the humiliating attitude of acquiescence, although 
he was a northern Representative. He is a native 
of Kentucky — a magnanimous, patriotic, and con- 
servative national statesman in feeling. He was 
a gallant and successful field officer in the Mexi- 
can war, at the crowning victory of Buena Vista 
and other closely contested fields of glory; which 
prove him at once, as I know him to be, a patriot, 
soldier, and statesman. He is the personification, 
the embodiment of the great republican principles 
of non-intervention and popular sovereignty. 

Some of the papers in East Tennessee have 
hoisted the flood-gates of slander and vitupera- 
tion, and, as they hoped, deluged my prospects. 
They have informed you, that now, that 1 am 
"dead and damned, they are satisfied."* You 
will recolleiit, fellow-citizens, that similar proc- 
lamations have been made annually ever since I 
was first a candidate before you. Let me ad- 
monish you not to be alarmed at these pronun- 
ciamientos. You need not be surprised that some 
of these men, in less than twelve months, advo- 
cate the republican doctrines discussed in thi.9 
address. I am proud that I am in no WLse re- 
sponsible to them. My only responsibility is to- 
that supreme, moral, patriotic, controlling, sov- 
ereign power, THE PEOPLE, in whose majesty, 
and in whose will at tlie ballot-box, resides and 
is illustrated the great inherent republican doc- 
trines of the right and ability of a free people to 
govern themselves, under the principles of non- 
intervention and popular sovereignty. 

I have always, as you well know, entered the 
field of political discussion reluctantly, and can 
say that this is the first time in my life that I 
have ever felt a solicitude, anxiously^ eagerly, 
and earnestly, to meet my countrymen in popular 
assemblage to discuss these great doctrines in 
their whole vast dimensions. This, I trust, I 
will have an opportunity to do when I shall meet 
you again. I am done with this whole ali'air.. 
My enemies can continue their crusade; I will 
not molest them. Whatever else I may have t» 
say, 1 will say to you in person. 

With sentiments of sincere regard, your friend 
and fellow-citizen, 

A. G. WATKINS. 

Washington, December 26, 1855. 

* The Rogersville Times. 



i-ffi/?i 



fi/fy 



Op 



fO'VCi 



^^S5 



0i! 



697 



^7a' 



^# 



